4 ms·

>I mean, the 2000 US presidential election had a recount... that was cancelled. The Brexit referendum had a bunch of spending irregularities... but the result s

>I mean, the 2000 US presidential election had a recount... that was cancelled. The Brexit referendum had a bunch of spending irregularities... but the result stands. The 2016 US presidential election had allegations of Russian interference... but the result stands. In none of those cases was there proof that actual vote counts were altered. There are still ongoing investigations into Russia's interference, but the side that the interference helped is the on that's currently in power, and there's enough ambiguity for them to avoid taking any direct action. If we'd had a paper ballots that proved that Russia hacked voting machines and actually changed 100k or so votes--I'm 100% confident we'd have had a completely different outcome.

michaelt 8y ago
In none of those cases was there proof that actual vote counts were altered. I was thinking more of the recounts that were cancelled. If you can't recount to check if vote counts were altered without first having proof that vote counts were altered, what's the point? More broadly, I hoped to illustrate the fact winners oppose fishing expeditions to double-check election integrity. I simply don't believe we have the option of getting the result wrong on the first announcement. It has to be right the first time. And because it has to be right first time, we should apply our most trusted counting method the first time; the addition of an early-but-untrustworthy count is a move in the wrong direction.
- learc83 8y ago
  >I was thinking more of the recounts that were cancelled. If you can't recount to check if vote counts were altered without first having proof that vote counts were altered, what's the point? But you can. Many states already have automatic recount laws when vote totals are close. In many cases candidates can pay for recounts even if they aren't close. Recounts are common in American politics, and sometimes they even change the result--Al Franken won in 2008 after a recount flipped the result. The Florida recount would most certainly have been finished if any of the counties had found obvious cases of voting machine hacking. Every country completed at least 1 recount, and most completed manual recounts.

michaelt 8y ago

In none of those cases was there proof that actual vote counts were altered. I was thinking more of the recounts that were cancelled. If you can't recount to check if vote counts were altered without first having proof that vote counts were altered, what's the point? More broadly, I hoped to illustrate the fact winners oppose fishing expeditions to double-check election integrity. I simply don't believe we have the option of getting the result wrong on the first announcement. It has to be right the first time. And because it has to be right first time, we should apply our most trusted counting method the first time; the addition of an early-but-untrustworthy count is a move in the wrong direction.

learc83 8y ago
>I was thinking more of the recounts that were cancelled. If you can't recount to check if vote counts were altered without first having proof that vote counts were altered, what's the point? But you can. Many states already have automatic recount laws when vote totals are close. In many cases candidates can pay for recounts even if they aren't close. Recounts are common in American politics, and sometimes they even change the result--Al Franken won in 2008 after a recount flipped the result. The Florida recount would most certainly have been finished if any of the counties had found obvious cases of voting machine hacking. Every country completed at least 1 recount, and most completed manual recounts.